Download PDF
Z Gastroenterol 2007; 45(11): 1141-1149
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-963631
Übersicht

© Karl Demeter Verlag im Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Standards und Innovationen in der Diagnostik der gastroösophagealen Refluxkrankheit

Standards and Innovations in the Diagnosis of Gastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseJ. Weigt1 , K. Mönkemüller1 , S. Kolfenbach1 , P. Malfertheiner1
  • 1Klinik für Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie und Infektiologie, Medizinische Fakultät der Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg
Further Information

Publication History

Manuskript eingetroffen: 13.7.2007

Manuskript akzeptiert: 5.10.2007

Publication Date:
19 November 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die gastroösophageale Refluxkrankheit (GERD) nimmt eine zentrale Rolle in der Patientenversorgung ein. Ein Großteil der Patienten, vor allem in den westlichen Industriestaaten, leidet an Symptomen einer Refluxkrankheit. Der Artikel gibt eine Übersicht über die wichtigsten Verfahren zur Diagnostik der GERD. Standardverfahren wie pH-Metrie, Bilitec und Manometrie, aber auch neue diagnostische Verfahren wie die Impedanzmessung und die Bravo pH-Metrie werden in Funktion und Anwendung beschrieben. Auch endoskopische Standards und neue Verfahren wie Chromo- und Magnifikationsendokopie, narrow band imanging (NBI) und computed virtual chromoendoscopy (CVC) werden dargestellt. Nicht alle, dieser teilweise neuen Verfahren müssen bei jedem Patienten Anwendung finden. Vielmehr erachten wir es für sinnvoll, die Untersuchungsmethoden, deren Vor- und Nachteile, genau zu kennen. Nur so ist es möglich, sie gezielt einzusetzen. Ziel der Untersuchungen ist die Charakterisierung der GERD bei dem jeweiligen Patienten, um eine gezielte Therapie anwenden zu können.

Abstract

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in the world. This article gives an overwiew about diagnostic procedures for GERD. Standard procedures such as pH-metry, Bilitec and manometry and also new diagnostic tools such as combined multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) and pH-metry and Bravo Capsule are described in detail. Established endoscopy criteria as well as innovative techniques such as magnification, narrow band imaging and computed virtual chromoendoscopy are also presented. Not all of these procedures need to be used in every patient. Therefore, it is important to know the technical aspects, indications, advantages and disadvantages of each method in order to appropriately use any of these tests. The final goal is to characterise GERD and provide the patient with an appropriate therapy.

Schlüsselwörter

GERD - pH-Metrie - Bilitec - Bravo MII-pH - Impedanz - MII-pH - Endoskopie

Key words

GERD - pH-metry - Bilitec - Bravo MII-pH - Impedance - MII-pH - endoscopy

Literatur

  • 1 Mönkemüller K, Malfertheiner P. Is non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) an inflammatory condition?.  CML Gastroenterology. 2006;  25 81-87
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Vakil N, Zanten S V, Kahrilas van P. et al . The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 1900-1920; quiz 1943
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Sifrim D, Blondeau K. New techniques to evaluate esophageal function.  Dig Dis. 2006;  24 243-251
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Fass R. Distinct phenotypic presentations of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a new view of the natural history.  Dig Dis. 2004;  22 100-107
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Savary M, Miller G. L’oesophage.  Manuel et atlas d’endoscopie. 1977;  80-92
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Armstrong D, Emde C, Inauen W. et al . Diagnostic assessment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: what is possible vs. what is practical?.  Hepatogastroenterology. 1992;  39 Suppl 1 3-13
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Lundell L R, Dent J, Bennett J R. et al . Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification.  Gut. 1999;  45 172-180
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Labenz J, Nocon M, Lind T. et al . Prospective follow-up data from the ProGERD study suggest that GERD is not a categorial disease.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 2457-2462
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D. et al . The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria.  Gastroenterology. 2006;  131 1392-1399
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Kiesslich R, Kanzler S, Vieth M. et al . Minimal change esophagitis: prospective comparison of endoscopic and histological markers between patients with non-erosive reflux disease and normal controls using magnifying endoscopy.  Dig Dis. 2004;  22 221-227
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Yoshikawa I, Yamasaki M, Yamasaki T. et al . Lugol chromoendoscopy as a diagnostic tool in so-called endoscopy-negative GERD.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 698-703
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Coenraad M, Masclee A A, Straathof J W. et al . Is Barrett’s esophagus characterized by more pronounced acid reflux than severe esophagitis?.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;  93 1068-1072
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Koek G H, Tack J, Sifrim D. et al . The role of acid and duodenal gastroesophageal reflux in symptomatic GERD.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;  96 2033-2040
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Masclee A A, Best A C, Graaf de R. et al . Ambulatory 24-hour pH-metry in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Determination of criteria and relation to endoscopy.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1990;  25 225-230
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Smith de J L, Opekun A R, Larkai E. et al . Sensitivity of the esophageal mucosa to pH in gastroesophageal reflux disease.  Gastroenterology. 1989;  96 683-689
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Jamieson J R, Stein H J, DeMeester T R. et al . Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;  87 1102-1111
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Pehl C, Keller J, Merio R. et al . Esophageal 24 hour-pH metry. Recommendations of the German Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility and the Study Group for Gastrointestinal Functional Disorders and Function Diagnostics of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.  Z Gastroenterol. 2003;  41 545-556
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Johnson L F, DeMeester T R. Development of the 24-hour intraesophageal pH monitoring composite scoring system.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986;  8 Suppl 1 52-58
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Mainie I, Tutuian R, Castell D O. Comparison between the combined analysis and the DeMeester Score to predict response to PPI therapy.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;  40 602-605
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Taghavi S A, Ghasedi M, Saberi-Firoozi M. et al . Symptom association probability and symptom sensitivity index: preferable but still suboptimal predictors of response to high dose omeprazole.  Gut. 2005;  54 1067-1071
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Weusten B L, Roelofs J M, Akkermans L M. et al . The symptom-association probability: an improved method for symptom analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH data.  Gastroenterology. 1994;  107 1741-1745
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Emde C, Cilluffo T, Bauerfeind P. et al . Combined esophageal and gastric pH-metry in healthy volunteers. Influence of cable through LES and effect of misoprostol.  Dig Dis Sci. 1989;  34 79-82
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Baldi F, Longanesi A, Ferrarini F. Esophageal and gastric acidity determination: its value and limitations.  Minerva Chir. 1991;  46 77-81
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Jacob P, Kahrilas P J, Herzon G. Proximal esophageal pH-metry in patients with „reflux laryngitis”.  Gastroenterology. 1991;  100 305-310
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Issing W J, Karkos P D, Perreas K. et al . Dual-probe 24-hour ambulatory pH monitoring for diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux.  J Laryngol Otol. 2004;  118 845-848
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Weusten B L, Akkermans L M, vanBerge-Henegouwen G P. et al . Dynamic characteristic of gastro-oesophageal reflux in ambulatory patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and normal control subjects.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1995;  30 731-737
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Jung B, Steinbach J, Beaumont C. et al . Lack of association between esophageal acid sensitivity detected by prolonged pH monitoring and Bernstein testing.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;  99 410-415
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Castell D O, Vela M. Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH-metry: an evolving technique to measure type and proximal extent of gastroesophageal reflux.  Am J Med. 2001;  111 Suppl 8 A 157S-159S
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Tutuian R, Castell D O. Multichannel intraluminal impedance: general principles and technical issues.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;  15 257-264
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Silny J. Intraluminal multiple electric impedance procedure for measurement of gastrointestinal motility.  J Gastrointest Motil. 1991;  3 151-162
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Sifrim D. Acid, weakly acidic and non-acid gastro-oesophageal reflux: differences, prevalence and clinical relevance.  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;  16 823-830
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Mainie I, Tutuian R, Shay S. et al . Acid and non-acid reflux in patients with persistent symptoms despite acid suppressive therapy: a multicentre study using combined ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring.  Gut. 2006;  55 1398-1402
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Tutuian R, Castell D O. Reflux monitoring: role of combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;  15 361-371
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Castell D O, Mainie I, Tutuian R. Non-acid gastroesophageal reflux: documenting its relationship to symptoms using multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII).  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2005;  116 321-333; discussion 333 - 324
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Tamhankar A P, Peters J H, Portale G. et al . Omeprazole does not reduce gastroesophageal reflux: new insights using multichannel intraluminal impedance technology.  J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;  8 890-897 discussion 897 - 898
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Dekel R, Martinez-Hawthorne S D, Guillen R J. et al . Evaluation of symptom index in identifying gastroesophageal reflux disease-related noncardiac chest pain.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004;  38 24-29
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Pandolfino J E, Shi G, Zhang Q. et al . Measuring EGJ opening patterns using high resolution intraluminal impedance.  Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005;  17 200-206
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Zentilin P, Iiritano E, Dulbecco P. et al . Normal values of 24-h ambulatory intraluminal impedance combined with pH-metry in subjects eating a Mediterranean diet.  Dig Liver Dis. 2006;  38 226-232
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Roman S, Poncet G, Serraj I. et al . Characterization of reflux events after fundoplication using combined impedance-pH recording.  Br J Surg. 2007;  94 48-52
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Vela M F, Tutuian R, Katz P O. et al . Baclofen decreases acid and non-acid post-prandial gastro-oesophageal reflux measured by combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;  17 243-251
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Wong W M, Bautista J, Dekel R. et al . Feasibility and tolerability of transnasal/per-oral placement of the wireless pH capsule vs. traditional 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring - a randomized trial.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;  21 155-163
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Ward E M, Devault K R, Bouras E P. et al . Successful oesophageal pH monitoring with a catheter-free system.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;  19 449-454
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Pandolfino J E, Richter J E, Ours T. et al . Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 740-749
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Fass R, Hell R, Sampliner R E. et al . Effect of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring on reflux-provoking activities.  Dig Dis Sci. 1999;  44 2263-2269
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Tu C H, Lee Y C, Wang H P. et al . Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring by using a wireless system: a pilot study in Taiwan.  Hepatogastroenterology. 2004;  51 1586-1589
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Remes-Troche J M, Ibarra-Palomino J, Carmona-Sanchez R I. et al . Performance, tolerability, and symptoms related to prolonged pH monitoring using the Bravo system in Mexico.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;  100 2382-2386
    Google Scholar
  • 47 des Varannes S B, Mion F, Ducrotte P. et al . Simultaneous recordings of oesophageal acid exposure with conventional pH monitoring and a wireless system (Bravo).  Gut. 2005;  54 1682-1686
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Ahlawat S K, Novak D J, Williams D C. et al . Day-to-day variability in acid reflux patterns using the BRAVO pH monitoring system.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;  40 20-24
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Triester S L, Leighton J A, Budavari A I. et al . Severe chest pain from an indwelling Bravo pH probe.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 317-319
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Fajardo N R, Wise J L, Locke 3 rd G R. et al . Esophageal perforation after placement of wireless Bravo pH probe.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 184-185
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Pandolfino J E, Zhang Q, Schreiner M A. et al . Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless versus the Slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different?.  Gut. 2005;  54 1687-1692
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Kauer W K, Peters J H, DeMeester T R. et al . Composition and concentration of bile acid reflux into the esophagus of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.  Surgery. 1997;  122 874-881
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Chen X, Yang G, Ding W Y. et al . An esophagogastroduodenal anastomosis model for esophageal adenocarcinogenesis in rats and enhancement by iron overload.  Carcinogenesis. 1999;  20 1801-1808
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Menges M, Muller M, Zeitz M. Increased acid and bile reflux in Barrett’s esophagus compared to reflux esophagitis, and effect of proton pump inhibitor therapy.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;  96 331-337
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Girelli C M, Cuvello P, Limido E. et al . Duodenogastric reflux: an update.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;  91 648-653
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Baldini F, Bechi P, Cianchi F. et al . Analysis of the optical properties of bile.  J Biomed Opt. 2000;  5 321-329
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Vaezi M F, Richter J E. Duodenogastroesophageal reflux and methods to monitor nonacidic reflux.  Am J Med. 2001;  111 Suppl 8 A 160S-168S
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Vaezi M F, Richter J E. Role of acid and duodenogastroesophageal reflux in gastroesophageal reflux disease.  Gastroenterology. 1996;  111 1192-1199
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Vaezi M F, Lacamera R G, Richter J E. Validation studies of Bilitec 2000: an ambulatory duodenogastric reflux monitoring system.  Am J Physiol. 1994;  267 G1050-1057
    Google Scholar
  • 60 Kauer W K, Burdiles P, Ireland A P. et al . Does duodenal juice reflux into the esophagus of patients with complicated GERD? Evaluation of a fiberoptic sensor for bilirubin.  Am J Surg. 1995;  169 98-103
    Google Scholar
  • 61 Champion G, Richter J E, Vaezi M F. et al . Duodenogastroesophageal reflux: relationship to pH and importance in Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastroenterology. 1994;  107 747-754
    Google Scholar
  • 62 Caldwell M T, Lawlor P, Byrne P J. et al . Ambulatory oesophageal bile reflux monitoring in Barrett’s oesophagus.  Br J Surg. 1995;  82 657-660
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Bechi P, Pucciani F, Baldini F. et al . Long-term ambulatory enterogastric reflux monitoring. Validation of a new fiberoptic technique.  Dig Dis Sci. 1993;  38 1297-1306
    Google Scholar
  • 64 Barrett M W, Myers J C, Watson D I. et al . Detection of bile reflux: in vivo validation of the Bilitec fibreoptic system.  Dis Esophagus. 2000;  13 44-50
    Google Scholar
  • 65 Vaezi M F, Singh S, Richter J E. Role of acid and duodenogastric reflux in esophageal mucosal injury: a review of animal and human studies.  Gastroenterology. 1995;  108 1897-1907
    Google Scholar
  • 66 Byrne J P, Romagnoli R, Bechi P. et al . Duodenogastric reflux of bile in health: the normal range.  Physiol Meas. 1999;  20 149-158
    Google Scholar
  • 67 Sifrim D, Holloway R, Silny J. et al . Acid, nonacid, and gas reflux in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease during ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance recordings.  Gastroenterology. 2001;  120 1588-1598
    Google Scholar
  • 68 Dekel R, Pearson T, Wendel C. et al . Assessment of oesophageal motor function in patients with dysphagia or chest pain - the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative experience.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;  18 1083-1089
    Google Scholar
  • 69 Lemme E M, Moraes-Filho J P, Domingues G. et al . Manometric findings of esophageal motor disorders in 240 Brazilian patients with non-cardiac chest pain.  Dis Esophagus. 2000;  13 117-121
    Google Scholar

Prof. Peter Malfertheiner

Klinik für Gastroenterologie, Hepatologie und Infektiologie, Medizinische Fakultät der Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg

Leipziger Straße 44

39120 Magdeburg

Phone: ++ 49/3 91/6 71 31 00

Fax: ++ 49/3 91/6 71 31 05

Email: peter.malfertheiner@medizin.uni-magdeburg.de

      >